You are here: / Criminal Law
,

COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court failed to make a searching inquiry after defendant indicated he wished to represent himself. The trial was conducted with standby counsel:

County Court failed to conduct a sufficient searching inquiry on the record here. At arraignment, defendant unequivocally expressed his intention to forgo his right to counsel and to instead represent and defend himself. Despite defendant’s clear expression of intent from the earliest possible opportunity, County Court made no immediate attempt, either at arraignment or subsequent pretrial proceedings, to conduct the requisite searching inquiry on the record. It was not until the first day of trial that County Court made any attempt to fulfill its obligation to determine whether defendant had knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel. At that time, County Court asked defendant a series of relevant questions relating to his background and pedigree, as well as his physical, mental and emotional capacity to represent himself. However, County Court’s belated searching inquiry fell short; the court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation,” nor warned of “the ‘risks inherent in proceeding pro se'” … . At no point in this record did the court address the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation or impress upon defendant the “singular importance” of being represented by counsel … . In contrast, at trial and prior to trial, County Court made various unwarranted laudatory comments about defendant’s aptitude for self-representation, thereby giving defendant the probable impression that his decision to proceed without counsel was in his best interest. In fact, at several points in the record, defendant undermined any conclusion that his waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent by demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an attorney. For example, as a result of defendant’s uninformed decision, neither he nor his standby counsel attended jury selection. …

The absence of the requisite searching inquiry may be the inadvertent product of County Court’s familiarity with defendant. However, County Court’s history and prior dealings with defendant does not relieve it of its obligation to conduct — and create a record of — the required inquiry … , for this inquiry serves the vital purpose of ensuring that defendant knew “what [he was] doing” and made the choice to forgo counsel with his “‘eyes open'” … . Moreover, neither County Court’s statements regarding its prior experience with defendant, nor its laudatory comments regarding defendant’s prior pro se performance, provide a reliable basis upon which we can conclude that defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … , particularly given defendant’s statement that he had never before represented himself at a trial. People v Myers, 2018 NY Slip Op 02361, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT))/STANDBY COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SEARCHING INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED HE WISHED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE PRESENCE OF STANDBY COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s statement at sentencing that he didn’t mean to hurt the victim required further inquiry by the court:

Although the record does not disclose that defendant made the appropriate postallocution motion required of him to adequately preserve this claim for our review … , we find that defendant made statements at sentencing that cast doubt upon his guilt and the voluntariness of his plea, thus triggering the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and imposing a duty upon County Court “to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary”… . A trial court “‘should conduct a hearing [or further inquiry] when at plea-taking or upon sentencing it appears the defendant misapprehends the nature of the charges or the consequences of [the] plea'”… . In addition, statements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered, raise the possibility of a justification defense or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea “require[s] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

At sentencing, defendant stated, “I was sorry that the person got hurt. I didn’t mean to hurt him. I was just trying to protect my family inside my home.” When confronted by County Court with the fact that he had allocuted during the plea colloquy that he intended to hurt the victim, defendant stated, “I was scared, so I intend[ed] to hurt him.” Without any further inquiry or discussion, County Court then proceeded to sentence defendant without providing him with an opportunity to withdraw his plea, notwithstanding his statements raising the possibility of a justification defense. People v Chin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02363, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE PLEA, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT))

FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction for conspiracy because the indictment did not allege an overt act:

We find merit in defendant’s pro se contention that count 4 of the indictment, charging him with conspiracy in the second degree, must be dismissed. Pursuant to Penal Law § 105.20, “[a] person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless an overt act is alleged and proved to have been committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy” … . Here, count 4 neither alleges that an overt act was committed nor includes factual allegations describing such an act. There is no assertion that defendant or the codefendants took any action beyond agreeing to “engage in or cause the performance of [conduct constituting a class A felony].” Moreover, the indictment’s reference to Penal Law § 150.15 does not incorporate an overt act allegation by reference, as the requirement is not found in that provision … . Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of conspiracy in the second degree under count 4 of the indictment must be reversed and the sentence imposed thereon vacated, and said count must be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective … . People v Pichardo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02365, Third Dept 4-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (CONSPIRACY, FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSPIRACY (CRIMINAL LAW, OVERT ACT, FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT))/OVERT ACT (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY, FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (JURISDICTION DEFECT, FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court’s allowing Sandoval evidence of a prior robbery which was the subject of a pending appeal was error, and the error was not harmless under the facts:

We … reverse the judgment of conviction because of an erroneous Sandoval ruling made by the Supreme Court … . At trial, the court permitted the defendant to be cross-examined about a prior robbery conviction which, at that time, was the subject of a pending appeal … . However, the Court of Appeals has held, and the People concede, that defendants may not be examined “about the underlying facts of an unrelated criminal conviction on appeal, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility” …

Sandoval errors are subject to harmless error analyses … . Here, however, we cannot conclude that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming or that there was no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction … . People v Wahaab, 2018 NY Slip Op 02332, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SANDOVAL (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon violated the protection against double jeopardy. Defendant had pled guilty to possession of the same weapon in a different county. However, proof the conviction was admissible in the trial under Molineux criteria:

Prior to the defendant’s trial in this case, the defendant pleaded guilty in Nassau County to possessing the same gun that was used in the instant robbery. There was no evidence offered at trial to show that the defendant’s possession of the gun was not continuous. Thus, the defendant’s possession of the same gun on December 14, 2011, in Kings County in connection with the instant robbery, and on December 20, 2011, in Nassau County, constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s conviction in Nassau County … , the underlying facts of that conviction, including that the gun was recovered during a car stop in Nassau County … , and ballistics evidence showing that the loaded gun recovered from defendant’s car … , was the same gun used in the instant robbery committed in Kings County … . Evidence of the defendant’s conviction in Nassau County of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was probative of the defendant’s intent to commit the instant robbery in the complainant’s home, was inextricably interwoven with the instant robbery, and was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant’s arrest in the instant robbery case … . In addition, the probative value of this evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice to the defendant … , and the court’s limiting instruction to the jury served to alleviate any prejudice resulting from the admission of the evidence … . People v Wright, 2018 NY Slip Op 02347, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT))

,

DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the case for a new second violent felony offender determination and resentencing, held that the sentencing judge should have made a searching inquiry concerning defendant’s wish to proceed pro se. Defendant’s attorney was sick and defendant did not want to be represented by the attorney who appeared to represent him (Klein). Simply designating Klein as “standby counsel” was not sufficient:

At the sentencing proceeding, the Supreme Court asked the defendant if the defendant wanted Klein to represent him, and the defendant answered in the negative. The court continued the sentencing proceeding, with the defendant appearing pro se and Klein present as a “standby” attorney or legal advisor, and thereafter adjudicated the defendant a second violent felony offender and imposed sentence.

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court erred in allowing the defendant to proceed pro se at the sentencing proceeding without conducting a searching inquiry to ascertain whether the defendant appreciated the dangers and advantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, since the record demonstrates that his plea of guilty was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea … . People v Charles, 2018 NY Slip Op 02334, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT))/STANDBY COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT))

,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that in a risk assessment procedure pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) the State Board of Examiners (and, therefore, the court) may consider youthful-offender-related documents:

New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires the State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders to assess an offender’s risk of reoffense. In making this determination, the Board has access to an offender’s full criminal background, including defendant’s YO-related records. SORA “thereby grants the Board access to the documents, which are available under the CPL if specifically required or permitted by statute'” … . Additionally, members of the Board have “access to YO-related records for the purpose of carrying out duties specifically authorized by law'” … . Therefore, “SORA’s directives both provide the statutory require[ment] or permi[ssion]’ to release the YO records under one provision of the YO statute, and describe the duties specifically authorized by law’ to allow for their release under another” … .

Accordingly, the CPL specifically provides the Board with access to YO-related documents … . As the Board’s inclusion of defendant’s YO adjudication “in assessing the risk of reoffense was based on the Board’s expertise and experience,” it is entitled to judicial deference … . As neither SORA nor the CPL “prohibit[s] the Board’s consideration of YO adjudications for the limited public safety purpose of accurately assessing an offender’s risk level,” Supreme Court appropriately assessed points under risk factors 9 and 10, relating to defendant’s prior YO adjudication … . People v Simono, 2018 NY Slip Op 02291, First Dept 4-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE SORA COURT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions, determined (1) defendant, who wanted to question witnesses with the aid of standby counsel, did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself requiring a searching inquiry by the court, and (2) the defendant, who did not notify the People of his wish to present psychiatric testimony (required by CPL 250.10), was properly precluded from presenting psychiatric testimony for the purpose of calling into question the voluntariness of his confession:

Defendant urges that a court presented with a request to proceed pro se with “standby counsel” should make an in-depth inquiry whether defendant still desires to represent himself, once defendant is informed that dual representation will not be provided. We hold that further colloquy by the trial court is not constitutionally required when a defendant remains equivocal, despite having been informed by the court on more than one occasion that his right to self-representation includes a waiver of the right to an attorney, as here. When a defendant asks to proceed “pro se with standby counsel” and the trial court explains the scope of the right to proceed pro se, and specifically denies the defendant’s request for hybrid representation, the better practice would be to again ask the defendant if he or she still wants to proceed without counsel. Nevertheless, “[w]hile such inquiries may be the better practice, we will not compel courts to engage in any particular catechism” before denying an equivocal request to proceed pro se because “[n]either our Constitution nor our precedent requires it” … . * * *

Defendant narrowly construes the phrase “any other defense” in CPL 250.10 (1) (c) to be limited to psychiatric evidence offered in support of a complete defense to an element of the crime, such as mens rea; he does not interpret the statute to include a defense strategy to offer evidence that allows the jury to negate the prosecution’s evidence of guilt. As explained below, this argument ignores the legislative intent, our precedent espousing the very purpose of notice, and the fact that, if a defendant’s confession was the primary evidence of guilt and the defendant raises the issue of voluntariness at trial, then voluntariness could be a complete defense to the crime … . Notably, our Court has previously labeled a defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his statement pursuant to CPL 710.70 a “defense” … . People v Silburn, 2018 NY Slip Op 02286, CtApp 4-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/PSYCHIATRIC OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/NOTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 250.10, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/CONFESSIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUNTARINESS, ,PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/CPL 250.10  (CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUNTARINESS, ,PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))

, ,

BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel  because counsel, after defendant pled not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder and thereby waived the required “track” hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20 (a “critical stage” of the proceedings):

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners … , who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant’s mental condition … .

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant’s mental condition … . …

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law” … . …

At the initial hearing, the People bear the burden of proving “to the satisfaction of the court,” i.e., by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is “a critical stage” of proceedings at which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . …

… [C]ounsel rendered ineffective assistance when he conceded at the plea proceeding that defendant was a danger to himself and society, and waived defendant’s right to an initial hearing before reviewing the psychiatric examination reports which had not yet been prepared for the court. Further, at the proceeding that followed the issuance of the reports, counsel simply relied on the psychiatrists’ reports and deferred to the court’s discretion. He did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports. Nor did counsel consult an expert on defendant’s behalf who might have offered a contrasting opinion. People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a text message from defendant indicating he needed money “just in case for a lawyer” should not have been admitted in evidence in this homicide case. The error was deemed harmless however:

The People should not have been permitted to introduce, as evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt, a text exchange the day after the crime in which defendant indicated that he needed money “just in case for a lawyer.” This evidence was an improper infringement of defendant’s right to counsel … . However, under all the circumstances, including the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included the testimony of one of the victims, any error in the admission of the text exchange and related summation comment on it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . The circumstantial evidence was compelling, and it led to an inescapable inference that the deceased and surviving victims were shot by defendant, the only other occupant of the car in which the shootings took place. People v Suero, 2018 NY Slip Op 02269, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy